{"id":675,"date":"2024-07-12T12:42:31","date_gmt":"2024-07-12T12:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/12\/why-the-collapse-of-philosophical-studies-in-the-islamic-world\/"},"modified":"2024-07-12T12:42:31","modified_gmt":"2024-07-12T12:42:31","slug":"why-the-collapse-of-philosophical-studies-in-the-islamic-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/12\/why-the-collapse-of-philosophical-studies-in-the-islamic-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the Collapse of Philosophical Studies in the Islamic World?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Leo Strauss sketches an answer in his "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism<\/em>, ed. T. L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 221-222, bolding added:<\/span><\/p>\n

For the Jew and the Moslem, religion is primarily not, as it is for the Christian, a faith formulated in dogmas, but a law, a code of divine origin. Accordingly, the religious science, the sacra doctrina<\/em>, is not dogmatic theology, theologia revelata<\/em>, but the science of the law, halaka<\/em> or fiqh<\/em>. The science of the law, thus understood has much less in common with philosophy than has dogmatic theology. Hence the <\/strong>status of philosophy is, as a matter of principle, much more precarious in the Islamic-Jewish world than it is in the Christian world.<\/strong> No one could become a competent Christian theologian without having studied at least a substantial part of philosophy; philosophy was an integral part of the officially authorized and even required training. On the other hand, one could become an absolutely competent halakist<\/em> or faqih<\/em> without having the slightest knowledge of  philosophy. This fundamental difference doubtless explains the possibility of the later complete collapse of philosophical studies in the Islamic world, a collapse which has no parallel in the West in spite of Luther.<\/span><\/p>\n

I like the "in spite of Luther."  What is Strauss getting at? I turn to Heiko A. Oberman' s magisterial Luther: Man between God and the Devil<\/em> (Yale UP, 1989, tr. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart). On p. 160, Oberman speaks of the new Wittenberg theology that Luther formulated "against the whole of scholasticism": "The whole of Aristotle is to theology as shadow is to light."<\/span><\/p>\n

Why do I<\/em> like the "in spite of Luther?" Because I am averse to Protestantism for three solid reasons: it is anti-monastic, anti-mystical, and anti-philosophical (anti-rational).  No doubt the RCC is even more corrupt now under Bergoglio the Termite than it was in Luther's day; so if this maverick decides he needs a church, he will have to make the journey to the (near) East.  Go east old man! (I plan to report later on Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church<\/em>.)  But here's a bit more Oberman to nail down my point about Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism's ) being anti-philosophical:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The knowledge that there was an infinite, qualitative distance between Heaven and earth became an established principle for Luther as early as 1509: all human thought, as noble, effective, and indispensable as it might be to solve problems in the world, does not suffice to fathom salvation because it cannot cannot reach Heaven.  Questions of faith must be resolved through the Word of God or not at all. The temptation — or compulsion — to sanctify the words of an and believe in them is satanic.<\/strong> When God is silent, man should not speak; and what God has put asunder, namely Heaven and earth, man should not join together.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus not even Augustine, especially Augustine the neo-Platonist, could become the new, infallible authority, because that would merely have been replacing one philosophy with another, substituting Plato for Aristotle. [. . .]<\/span><\/p>\n

The alternative is clear: whatever transcends the perception of empirical reality is either based on God's Word or is pure fantasy. As a nominalist Luther began making a conscious distinction between knbowledge of tge world and faith in God . . . . (pp. 160-161, emphasis<\/strong> added)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A quick question: given sola scriptura<\/em>, where in the Scriptures does God deliver his verdict on the  problem of universals and come down on the side of nominalism? And if Holy Writ is silent on the famous problem, then it is "pure fantasy" and Luther has no justification for his nominalism.  <\/span><\/p>\n

And what about sola scriptura<\/em> itself? Where in the Bible is the doctrine enunciated?<\/span><\/p>\n

Romanists 1; Lutherans 0. And this despite the undeniable corruption of the RCC in those days that triggered Luther's protest.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Leo Strauss sketches an answer in his "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. T. L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 221-222, bolding added: For the Jew and the Moslem, religion is primarily not, as it is for the Christian, a faith formulated in dogmas, but a … Continue reading “Why the Collapse of Philosophical Studies in the Islamic World?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[119,20,220,355],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-islamism","category-metaphilosophy","category-protestantism","category-strauss-leo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}